I try to segment of multiple sclerosis lesions in MR images using deep convolutional neural networks with keras. In this task, each voxel must be classified, either as a lesion voxel or healthy voxel.
The challenge of this task is data imbalance that number of lesion voxels is less than number of healthy voxels and data is extremely imbalanced.
I have a small number of training data and I can not use the sampling techniques. I try to select appropriate loss function to classify voxels in these images.
I tested focal loss, but I could not tuning gamma parameter in this loss function.
Maybe someone help me that how to select appropriate loss function for this task?
Focal loss is indeed a good choice, and it is difficult to tune it to work.
I would recommend using online hard negative mining: At each iteration, after your forward pass, you have loss computed per voxel. Before you compute gradients, sort the "healthy" voxels by their loss (high to low), and set to zero the loss for all healthy voxels apart from the worse k (where k is about 3 times the number of "lesion" voxels in the batch).
This way, gradients will only be estimated for a roughly balanced set.
This video provides a detailed explanation how class imbalance negatively affect training, and how to use online hard negative mining to overcome it.
Related
I am working on deep learning model to detect regions of timesteps with anomalies. This model should classify each timestep as possessing the anomaly or not.
My labels are something like this:
labels = [0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ...]
The 0s represent 'normal' timesteps and the 1s represent the existence of an anomaly. In reality, my dataset is very very imbalanced:
My training set consists of over 7000 samples, where only 1400 samples = 20% of those contain at least 1 anomaly (timestep = 1)
I am feeding samples with 4096 timesteps each. The average number of anomalies, in the samples that contain them, is around 2. So, assuming there is an anomaly, the % of anomalous timesteps ranges from 0.02% to 0.04% for each sample.
With that said, I do need to shift from the standard binary cross entropy to something that highlights the anomalous timesteps from the anomaly free timesteps.
So, I experimented adding weights to the anomalous class in such a way that the model is forced to learn from the anomalies and not just reduce its loss from the anomaly-free timesteps. It actually worked well and the model seems to learn to detect anomalous timesteps. One problem however is that training can become quite unstable (and unpredictable), with sudden loss spikes appearing and affecting the learning process. Below, you can see the effects on the loss and metrics charts for two of my trainings:
After going through a debugging process for the trainings, I am confident that the problem comes from ocasional predictions given for the anomalous timesteps. That is, in some samples of a certain epoch, and in some anomalous timesteps, the model is giving a very low prediction, e.g. 0.01, for the 1s label (should be close to 1 ofc). Considering the very high (but supposedly necessary) weights given to the anomalous timesteps, the penaly is really extreme and the loss just skyrockets.
Going deeper, if I inspect the losses of the sample where the jump happened and look for the batch right before the loss jumped, I see that the losses are all around 10^-2 - 0.0053, 0.004, 0.0041... - not a single sample with a loss over those values. Overall, an average loss of 0.005. However, if I inspect the loss of the following batch, in that same sample, the avg. loss of the batch is already 3.6, with a part of the samples with a low loss but another part with a very high loss - e.g. 9.2, 7.7, 8.9... I can confirm that all the high losses come from the penalties given at predicting the 1s timesteps. The following batches of the same sample and some of the batches of the next epoch get affected and take some time to start decreasing again and going back to a stable learning process.
With this said, I am having this problem for some weeks already and really need some guidance in what I could try to deal with the spikes, which I assume that arise on the gradient updates associated with anomalous timesteps that are harder to learn.
I am currently using a simple 2-layer keras LSTM model with 64 units each and a dense as the last layer with a 1 unit dense layer with sigmoid activation. As for the optimizer I am using Adam. I am training with batch size 128. Some things to consider also:
I have tried changes in weights and other loss functions. Ultimately, if I reduce the weights given to the anomalous timesteps the model doesn't give so much importance to them and the loss reduces by considering only the anomalous free timesteps. I have also considered focal binary cross entropy loss but it doesn't seem to do anything that could avoid those jumps as, in the end, it is all about adding or reducing weights for certain timesteps.
My current learning rate is the Adam's default, 10⁻3. I have tried reducing the learning rate which leads to less impactful spikes (they're still there though) but the model also takes much more time or gets stuck. Not sure if it would be the way to go in this case, as the training seems to go well except for these cases. Decaying learning rate might also not make too much sense as the spikes can happen earlier in the training and not only on later epochs. Not sure if this is the way to go.
I am still investigating gradient clipping as a solution. I am still not sure on what values to use and if it is actually an effective solution for my case, but from what I understood of it, it should allow to counter those jumps resulting from those 'almost' exploding gradients.
The spikes could originate from sample noise / bad samples. However, since I am already using batch size 128 and I have already tested training with simple synthetic samples I have created and the spikes were still there, I guess it is not a problem with specific samples.
The imbalance obviously plays the bigger role here. Not sure if undersampling the majority class of samples of 4096 timesteps (like increasing from 20% to 50% the amount of samples with at least an anomalous timestep) would make a big difference here since each sample of timesteps is by itself very imbalanced as it contains around 2 timesteps with anomalies. It is a problem with the imbalance within each sample.
I know it might be quite some context but honestly I am already into my limit of trying stuff for weeks.
The solutions I am inclined to go for next are either gradient clipping or just changing my samples to be more centered around the anomalous timesteps, in such a way that it contains less anomaly free timesteps and hopefully allows for convergence without having to apply such drastic weights to anomalous timesteps. This last option is more difficult for me to opt for due to some restrictions, but I might look at it if I have nothing else available.
What do you think? I am able to provide more information if needed.
I'm new to Deep Learning and I saw this for the first time. Having MAE as loss function and MSE to metric. What is the purpose of this and what is gained?
(loss=tf.metrics.MeanAbsoluteError(), metrics=[tf.losses.MeanSquaredError()])
In some cases it is useful to have a loss function different from the metric you are going to evaluate.
Consider the case in which you want to denoise an image, that is you design a network that takes as input a noise image and outputs its clean version. Here, your metric might be the Peak-Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR) or some sort of structural similarity (SSIM) between your output and the ground truth clean image. However, during training, you might consider different loss function, such as L1 (MAE), L2 (MSE) or even a Perceptual Loss, such as the VGG loss, because these have been proved to lead to better results than directly optimizing for PSNR or SSIM.
I have been trying to conduct a few experiments using TensorFlow Probability (TFP), and I got a few questions.
What is the proper value of the coefficient of the KL loss?
In the paper by Blundell (2015), the coefficient is set to 1/M (where M is the number of mini-batches). In the example given by TFP, the coefficient is given as 1/mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
As I go from 2d input to 3d images volumes, the KL loss is still significantly larger (~1k) than the cross-entropy (~1), even after dividing by mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
What is the guideline for getting a proper value for this coefficient? Maybe like the two-loss terms should be the same order of magnitude?
The current coefficient only takes care of the number of training samples, but not the network complexity or number of parameters in the network, which I assume the KL loss increase with the complexity of the model.
I am trying to implement a neural network with the KL loss, without using keras.model.losses, as some software production and hardware support limitation. I am trying to train my model with TF 1.10 and TFP 0.3.0., the issue is that for tf<=1.14, tf.keras.model does not support tf.layers inside the Keras model, so I can't use my original model straight away. Is there a way to get the KL loss, not from model.losses, but from layers or weights of the network in a TF construct?
Is batch normalization or group normalization still helpful in Bayesian deep learning?
In the paper by Blundell (2015), the coefficient is set to 1/M (where M is the number of mini-batches). In the example given by TFP, the coefficient is given as 1/mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
In the BBB paper eq. 8, they refer to M being the number of mini-batches. To be consistent with the non-stochastic gradient learning, it should be scaled by the number of mini-batches which is what is done by Graves. Another alternative is that done in eq. 9, where they scale it by \pi_i, where the sum of all the values in the set {\pi} sum to one.
In the TFP example, it does look like the num_examples is the total number of independent samples within the training set, which is much larger than the number of batches. This is goes by a few names, such as Safe Bayes or Tempering. Have a look at sec. 8 of this paper for some more discussion about the use of tempering within Bayesian inference and it's suitability.
As I go from 2d input to 3d images volumes, the KL loss is still significantly larger (~1k) than the cross-entropy (~1), even after dividing by mnist_data.train.num_examples. Why?
The ELBO will always be larger than just your cross-entropy (which defines your likelihood). Have a look at how the KL divergence term in the ELBO is found. (and a full mean-field approach where each weight/parameter is assumed to be independent).
Since the assumed posterior is factorised (assume each parameter is independent), can write the joint distribution as a product. This means when you take the log when you are computing the KL between the approx. posterior and the prior, you can write it as a sum of the KL terms between each parameter. Since the KL is >= 0, for each parameter you add to your model you will be adding another positive term to your ELBO. This is likely why your loss is so much more for your 3D model, likely because there is more parameters.
Another reason this could occur is if you have less data (your M is smaller, than the KL term is weighted less).
What is the guideline for getting a proper value for this coefficient? Maybe like the two-loss terms should be the same order of magnitude?
I am unsure of any specific guideline, for training you are interested primarily in the gradients. A large loss does not mean a large gradient. Have a look at the gradients contributed by the negative log likelihood and the KL term in your ELBO. If the KL term is too large, you probably need a more informative prior or more data (you could simply scale the KL term but this feels a bit yucky for the Bayesian in me).
The current coefficient only takes care of the number of training samples, but not the network complexity or the number of parameters in the network, which I assume the KL loss increase with the complexity of the model.
Yes, as stated before, in general, more parameters == greater ELBO (for a mean-field approach as used in Bayes by Backprop).
I am trying to implement a neural network with the KL loss, without using keras.model.losses, as some software production and hardware support limitation. I am trying to train my model with TF 1.10 and TFP 0.3.0., the issue is that for tf<=1.14, tf.keras.model does not support tf.layers inside the Keras model, so I can't use my original model straight away. Is there a way to get the KL loss, not from model.losses, but from layers or weights of the network in a TF construct?
I am unsure about the best way to tackle this part of it. I would be cautious about going to older versions where it isn't explicitly supported. They put those warnings/exceptions in for a reason.
Is batch normalization or group normalization still helpful in Bayesian deep learning?
For variational inference (as done in Bayes by Backprop) Batchnorm is fine. For sampling methods such as MCMC, Batch normalization is no longer suitable. Have a look at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.03491v1.pdf for info on suitability for batch norm with sampling methods for approx. Bayesian inference.
When we are dealing with Stochastic Gradient Descent, the cost function is updated based on single, random training data.
But this single entry may alter the weights to its favour and as the cost function is only dependent on that entry, the cost function might mislead us, as it isn't actually reducing the cost, but instead it is overfitting the particular entry. With the next entry, once again, the weights will be updated to favour this entry.
Won't it lead to over fitting? How do I go about resolving this issue?
The training data isn't random - SGD iterates over all the training points (either singly or in batches). Because the loss function is calculated for data batch (or individual training point), it can be thought of as a random draw from a distribution of gradient vectors in weight space that will not match exactly the global gradient of the loss function calculated over the entirety of the training data. A single step is absolutely "over-fit" to the batch / training point, but we only take a single step in that direction (moderated by the learning rate which is typically << 1). Then we move on to the next data point (or batch) and calculate a new gradient. There is a "recency" effect (data trained more recently effectively counts more), but this is moderated by small learning rates. In aggregate over many iterations, all of the training data are equally weighted.
By doing this over all of the data in turn, each individual backprop step is taking a small random (but not uncorrelated) step in weight space. Across many training iterations, the network may be able to find its way to very good solutions (not a lot of guarantees about global optimality, but neural networks are highly expressive by their nature and can often find very good solutions). However, it may take many stepwise iterations over the same data set to converge to a local basin of attraction.
Over-fitting on training data is absolutely a concern for Neural Networks, but that's a function of their expressivity rather than the Stochastic Gradient Descent algorithm. Techniques like dropout and kernel regularizers on the training weights can provide regularization robustness, but the only way to
When I execute the cifar10 model as described at https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/deep_cnn I achieve 86% accuracy after approx 4 hours using a single GPU , when I utilize 2 GPU's the accuracy drops to 84% but reaching 84% accuracy is faster on 2 GPU's than 1.
My intuition is
that average_gradients function as defined at https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/tutorials/image/cifar10/cifar10_multi_gpu_train.py returns a less accurate gradient value as an average of gradients will be less accurate than the actual gradient value.
If the gradients are less accurate then the parameters than control the function that is learned as part of training is less accurate. Looking at the code (https://github.com/tensorflow/models/blob/master/tutorials/image/cifar10/cifar10_multi_gpu_train.py) why is averaging the gradients over multiple GPU's less accurate than computing the gradient on a single GPU ?
Is my intuition of averaging the gradients producing a less accurate value correct ?
Randomness in the model is described as :
The images are processed as follows:
They are cropped to 24 x 24 pixels, centrally for evaluation or randomly for training.
They are approximately whitened to make the model insensitive to dynamic range.
For training, we additionally apply a series of random distortions to artificially increase the data set size:
Randomly flip the image from left to right.
Randomly distort the image brightness.
Randomly distort the image contrast.
src : https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/deep_cnn
Does this have an effect on training accuracy ?
Update :
Attempting to investigate this further, the loss function value training with different number of GPU's.
Training with 1 GPU : loss value : .7 , Accuracy : 86%
Training with 2 GPU's : loss value : .5 , Accuracy : 84%
Shouldn't the loss value be lower for higher for higher accuracy, not vice versa ?
In the code you linked, using the function average_gradient with 2 GPUs is exactly equivalent (1) to simply using 1 GPU with twice the batch size.
You can see it in the definition:
grad = tf.concat(axis=0, values=grads)
grad = tf.reduce_mean(grad, 0)
Using a larger batch size (given the same number of epochs) can have any kind of effect on your results.
Therefore, if you want to do exactly equivalent (1) calculations in 1-GPU or 2-GPU cases, you may want to halve the batch size in the latter case. (People sometimes avoid doing it, because smaller batch sizes may also make the computation on each GPU slower, in some cases)
Additionally, one needs to be careful with learning rate decay here. If you use it, you want to make sure the learning rate is the same in the nth epoch in both 1-GPU and 2-GPU cases -- I'm not entirely sure this code is doing the right thing here. I tend to print the learning rate in the logs, something like
print sess.run(lr)
should work here.
(1) Ignoring issues related to pseudo-random numbers, finite precision or data set sizes not divisible by the batch size.
There is a decent discussion of this here (not my content). Basically when you distribute SGD, you have to communicate gradients back and forth somehow between workers. This is inherently imperfect, and so your distributed SGD typically diverges from a sequential, single-worker SGD at least to some degree. It is also typically faster, so there is a trade off.
[Zhang et. al., 2015] proposes one method for distributed SGD called elastic-averaged SGD. The paper goes through a stability analysis characterizing the behavior of the gradients under different communication constraints. It gets a little heavy, but it might shed some light on why you see this behavior.
Edit: regarding whether the loss should be lower for the higher accuracy, it is going to depend on a couple of things. First, I am assuming that you are using softmax cross-entropy for your loss (as stated in the deep_cnn tutorial you linked), and assuming accuracy is the total number of correct predictions divided by the total number of samples. In this case, a lower loss on the same dataset should correlate to a higher accuracy. The emphasis is important.
If you are reporting loss during training but then report accuracy on your validation (or testing) dataset, it is possible for these two to be only loosely correlated. This is because the model is fitting (minimizing loss) to a certain subset of your total samples throughout the training process, and then tests against new samples that it has never seen before to verify that it generalizes well. The loss against this testing/validation set could be (and probably is) higher than the loss against the training set, so if the two numbers are being reported from different sets, you may not be able to draw comparisons like "loss for 1 GPU case should be lower since its accuracy is lower".
Second, if you are distributing the training then you are calculating losses across multiple workers (I believe), but only one accuracy at the end, again against a testing or validation set. Maybe the loss being reported is the best loss seen by any one worker, but overall the average losses were higher.
Basically I do not think we have enough information to decisively say why the loss and accuracy do not seem to correlate the way you expect, but there are a number of ways this could be happening, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
I've also encountered this issue.
See Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hour from Facebook which addresses the same issue. The suggested solution is simply to scale up the learning rate by k (after some reasonable warm-up epochs) for k GPUs.
In practice I've found out that simply summing up the gradients from the GPUs (rather than averaging them) and using the original learning rate sometimes does the job as well.